Seventy seven anonymous scientists asked questions almost all skeptics would agree with, make up a 97% consensus? Is Gillis intentionally trying to test the limits of his editors at the New York Times with his tripe?

Even more journalisticaly wacky is what one astute reader of Bishop Hill blog noted that Gillis added the phrase “serious risk” in relation to the 97% "consensus" silliness. Gillis made pulled the "serious risk" phrase from thin air. The reader at Bishop Hill accurately noted: “With that fabrication right at the start of the article I see no reason to read any further.”

In any respectable publication, this would be corrected, but who really cares if the New York Times corrects the woeful reporting of Gillis?